A fool and his dog are soon parted.

 

Funny, though, how dog and master often look alike.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/article/2024/aug/21/police-investigate-as-man-killed-by-his-xl-bully-dog

 

2 hours ago, BusyB said:

 

I can't imagine wanting to live with a dog that might kill me just because it doesn't like the type of Chappy I put down for it.

 

 

I thought the same then remembered I'm married...   

1 hour ago, WDSmart said:

Why should the species be of interest or concern?

 

You're right. Maybe the dog was stressed over bill payments and a nagging wife. 

32 minutes ago, stoner said:

 

You're right. Maybe the dog was stressed over bill payments and a nagging wife. 

If you do want to consider the species, which species in this incident is the most vicious and dangerous?

5 hours ago, Captain Monday said:

 

All pit, bully, American bully , staffordshire,  and whatever else the fools what fancy these dogs want to call them to hide their true intent, well they are time boms. Maybe time to look at exterminating such breeds

 

My personal opinion other than military and law enforcement Nobody should be allowed to keep a dog bigger than a Corgi (10-15kg). *I know I know, then these gormless clods will simply breed a dangerous dog that size having the  temperment of a Tazmanian Devil.

 

 

I'd, to an extent, agree, except for the mass extermination bit. Make it compulsory to neuter/spade all Bull Terriers and derivatives. Within 10-15 years, the breed will be gone. They all eventually die of cancer anyhow. My Grandad had Staffies; he went by the pedigree etc. All of them short tempered dogs, and they all cost him a fortune when they got cancer.

2 hours ago, JonnyF said:

 

Why am I not surprised to see you calling for more big state interference in people's lives?

 

Anything else you want to ban?

 

Why am I not surprised that you choose to ignore the evidence when it doesn't fit your narrative?

 

Apparently nothing must be allowed to infringe upon your individual sovereignty, even if it means that others suffer the consequences: 'No accountability and no responsibility' appears to be your mantra.

2 hours ago, WDSmart said:

If you do want to consider the species, which species in this incident is the most vicious and dangerous?

 

It's a dog. 

6 hours ago, WDSmart said:

Like any assault, the actions of the victim need to be taken into consideration before assuming the attacker was acting improperly. Nothing like that is described in the article above.

 

His culpable action was buying that animal in the first place. What the hell did he want with that? Looks like his protector son of god (see foto - brooch right lapel) didn't agree with his choice either.

 

And my comment further up is serious. I love dogs and grew up with one as a child. Not scared of them at all and can handle them well. But there's no way I'd want something like that around the house.

 

At least the police put a swift end to the (admittedly) poor dog  right away. Unlike their Thai counterparts who pass killer dogs on to other 'better' owners.

 

5 hours ago, JonnyF said:

 

Why am I not surprised to see you calling for more big state interference in people's lives?

 

Anything else you want to ban?

Trump

5 hours ago, JonnyF said:

 

Like kids, not dangerous at all if raised correctly.

 

Mine is a big softy. Has many uses. Guard dog, waste disposal unit, vermin removal, snake catcher etc. 

 

Couldn't wish for a more loyal companion. Marvellous dogs. 

 

Fingers crossed.

5 hours ago, proton said:

Mans best friend again, no it's not the owners it's these vicious dogs bred for violence. Any in public without a muzzle should be shot on sight.

Evidence here that no matter who one speaks to there will always be something upon which agreement exists.

 

 

5 hours ago, proton said:

Mans best friend again, no it's not the owners it's these vicious dogs bred for violence. Any in public without a muzzle should be shot on sight.

Funny, Greyhounds must wear a muzzle I never heard about a Greyhound attacking anybody. 

11 minutes ago, still kicking said:

Funny, Greyhounds must wear a muzzle I never heard about a Greyhound attacking anybody. 

 

Well that might be due to the muzzle 

1 minute ago, proton said:

 

Well that might be due to the muzzle 

I used to own Greyhounds and Raced and bred them nobody ever got bitten and no they did not wear a muzzle in the kennel.

5 hours ago, JonnyF said:

Mine is a big softy. Has many uses. Guard dog, waste disposal unit, vermin removal, snake catcher etc. 

 

Didn't you post pictures in another thread that showed the dogs caged while people were working at your place, or was that another member?

 

They must be really softies if they need caged when people are around

4 hours ago, MicroB said:

 

I'd, to an extent, agree, except for the mass extermination bit. Make it compulsory to neuter/spade all Bull Terriers and derivatives. Within 10-15 years, the breed will be gone. They all eventually die of cancer anyhow. My Grandad had Staffies; he went by the pedigree etc. All of them short tempered dogs, and they all cost him a fortune when they got cancer.

Yeah, I don't mean the humane destruction of peoples pets. Just spay/neuter and eliminate the bloodlines.

 

In more than one case I have read like *the woman who was mauled to death by her lovely pitties while walking  in the Virginia woods, when the authorities finally show up the dogs remain, ferociously guarding the corpse. Deeply confused. These dogs have a fundamental defect of temperment. Of course the friends or relatives could not believe it was the dogs 

 

https://people.com/crime/virginia-woman-mauled-death-dogs-while-walking-woods/

8 hours ago, stoner said:

 

You're right. Maybe the dog was stressed over bill payments and a nagging wife. 

 

Wouldn't you say that these dogs are far less dangerous than humans?

Yet, nobody talks about banning people, or disallowing homo sapiens to breed.

 

Aren't we trying to create a more equitable society with the likes of Harris?

So, you cannot have it both ways.

 

ALSO: Eating people is wrong, although widespread and sacred in some cultures...

https://aeon.co/ideas/eating-people-is-wrong-but-its-also-widespread-and-sacred

 

 

And, then you got your Jeff Dahmer types...

 

 

So probably the dog in question didn't even eat Daintree....

Or, more likely, didn't have the time to do so.

 

 

10 hours ago, GammaGlobulin said:

 

 

Funny, though, how dog and master often look alike.

 

10 hours ago, GammaGlobulin said:

 

3 hours ago, GammaGlobulin said:

or disallowing homo sapiens to breed.

 

i do. i find it one of the most blatant hypocrisies. in an age of science and technology we should want better.....alas the innate fight of my team vs your team still rules the day. 

Considering the cops don't carry guns in the UK how do they go turning up to a attacking vicious dog?

 

I guess use their pepper spray 😂 

 

What a ridiculous police force that claims they care for their workers safety, then sending some bloke out by himself to incidents without a gun in isolated areas , one got run over a few years back ,no gun to shoot back 

I sent an email to the head of the Police Union in the UK to tell him he drinks his own bath water after saying he cares about his union members safety ,no response of course 

10 hours ago, stoner said:

13 hours ago, WDSmart said:

If you do want to consider the species, which species in this incident is the most vicious and dangerous?

 

It's a dog. 

No, the most dangerous and destructive species on this planet is humans. 

10 hours ago, BusyB said:

 

His culpable action was buying that animal in the first place. What the hell did he want with that? Looks like his protector son of god (see foto - brooch right lapel) didn't agree with his choice either.

 

And my comment further up is serious. I love dogs and grew up with one as a child. Not scared of them at all and can handle them well. But there's no way I'd want something like that around the house.

 

At least the police put a swift end to the (admittedly) poor dog  right away. Unlike their Thai counterparts who pass killer dogs on to other 'better' owners.

 

But nowhere does it say what, if anything, he was doing or had done to the dog, which might have provoked it into assaulting him.

I also love dogs. I currently have about 20 of them, all strays, which I have "rescued" from the road that runs past my mountain home. People from the cities come up here to dump their unwanted dogs. Although they fight among themselves, I've never had any of them attack me or anyone else who visits here. They do bark at them, which is a good thing for me - like an alarm - but never physically attack them.

And yes, the police, as they are want to do as humans, killed the dog to "solve" the problem. I prefer the "Thai counterparts" approach which to relocate the dog.

11 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

No, the most dangerous and destructive species on this planet is humans. 

 

wrong.

 

how do you live with such self hatred ? a lifetime of selling out. now trying to make up for it with extreme thinking. 

 

 

 

 

Just now, stoner said:

14 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

No, the most dangerous and destructive species on this planet is humans. 

 

wrong.

 

how do you live with such self hatred ? a lifetime of selling out. now trying to make up for it with extreme thinking. 

It's not "self-hatred"; it's self-acceptance. Do you doubt that what I say above is true? Do you doubt that humans have caused the death of more living beings and even extinction of species than any other bring on this planet? 

5 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

It's not "self-hatred"; it's self-acceptance. Do you doubt that what I say above is true? Do you doubt that humans have caused the death of more living beings and even extinction of species than any other bring on this planet? 

 

i absolutely doubt it.

 

we are but a spec in time. not even worth talking about for another 50 million years i would say. did you know that 99 percent or more of the species that have ever existed are extinct..... and we had little or nothing to do with it. 

 

but keep blabbling on about socialism and owning nothing. 

 

 

9 hours ago, CallumWK said:

 

Didn't you post pictures in another thread that showed the dogs caged while people were working at your place, or was that another member?

 

They must be really softies if they need caged when people are around

From recollection the dogs visible through bars in front of the camera lens.

 

 

5 hours ago, GammaGlobulin said:

 

Wouldn't you say that these dogs are far less dangerous than humans?

Yet, nobody talks about banning people, or disallowing homo sapiens to breed.

 

Aren't we trying to create a more equitable society with the likes of Harris?

So, you cannot have it both ways.

 

ALSO: Eating people is wrong, although widespread and sacred in some cultures...

https://aeon.co/ideas/eating-people-is-wrong-but-its-also-widespread-and-sacred

 

 

And, then you got your Jeff Dahmer types...

 

 

So probably the dog in question didn't even eat Daintree....

Or, more likely, didn't have the time to do so.

 

 

Undoubtedly, but these breeds of attack dogs are kept by people who are themselves nasty.

Dogs from these breeds are not made viscous, they are bred to be viscous, it’s a characteristic their owners admire and look for when choosing to keep these dogs. An extension of their own personality.

 

1 hour ago, georgegeorgia said:

Considering the cops don't carry guns in the UK how do they go turning up to a attacking vicious dog?

 

I guess use their pepper spray 😂 

 

What a ridiculous police force that claims they care for their workers safety, then sending some bloke out by himself to incidents without a gun in isolated areas , one got run over a few years back ,no gun to shoot back 

I sent an email to the head of the Police Union in the UK to tell him he drinks his own bath water after saying he cares about his union members safety ,no response of course 

Nothing ridiculous about it.

 

All UK forces have specialist armed police officers they can and do mobilize if needed.
 

However, most officers are not armed and the police themselves don’t want to be routinely armed.

 

UK policing is by consent, calling the police to attend domestic disturbances, neighborhood disputes and cops performing traffic stops or any number of routine police interactions with the general public do not, as in some parts of the world, ever end with innocent members of the public being gunned down by a cop enforcing their authority with a gun.

 

https://www.forbes.com/uk/advisor/life-insurance/what-are-the-uks-most-dangerous-jobs/#:~:text=Police officer%3A with 13 deaths,in the police was risky

15 hours ago, Doctor Tom said:

Acceptable dog. But still in need of a Million years Darwinism to achieve Cat level.

at least they put him down